It's Not Government. It's Not Capitalism.

This post has
70
Replies |
7
Followers

The government is not a god with special powers. Neither is it even an entity. It exists on the consent of those who make it. There is a mirror here with Capitalism. We sell ourselves into bondage. Two power structures established to make us ill and sell us the cure. All the while forgetting that no one rules if no one obeys.

The market is an amazing thing. It offers powerful incentive to better our lives as a whole society. But power structures serve us nothing. They serve only groups at the expense of other groups. There is no action of hierarchy which creates wealth or innovation that could not have been created through fully voluntary bargaining, as can only exist when there is equal leverage in negotiating contract. Power structures only serve those with the power.

Yet we do not see this fairness, established for our own betterment according our own desires. For we fall into a trap. Somewhere along the line we succumb to the lie that selling our freedom will bring us more. As if our volition and our labor are stock or parts on an assembly line.

Government and Capitalism are not diseases. They are symptoms.

It is the conglomeration of our choices and the failures we have made along the way which, unfortunately, have created a feed-back-loop of incentive towards the same failing choices. We have created a society, through our own choices, in which the pressure is powerful to believe that one must sell their freedom in-order to survive.

It is well known that selling one's self into indentured servitude has become illegal. One of many cases of government trying to fix a problem it's inherently tied up in. It's something that used to be a defining trait of our economy, at least by their standards of what it is. When we embrace it's full meaning, by any standard examined on it's practical application, we see that our economy is still very much defined by indentured servitude.

I contend that freedom is the source of a people's innovation. Up to and no further than the point at which we use our freedom to give it up. And this, at it's root, is the disease. A sort of masochism. The idea that a laborer should trade their work for a wage, rather than for equity in his workplace, is fundamentally flawed. And, in a truly free market, it becomes apparent that it's just plain stupid. However, in a society where this is has already been established as the norm, it certainly becomes difficult for the individual to resist.

This same mass hysteria is the mother of, not only Capitalism, but Statism as well. For, besides the differing distributions of natural resources in geographic areas, there is no inherent reason that arms should become so concentrated to a select few. Not only does government exist only on the consent of government workers; the consent of the rest of society is also vital to the continued health of the State. This is why the most powerful and ruthless governments are founded, not only on laws and their enforcement, but on propaganda as well.

But that's all it is, really. Propaganda.

The State has flourished because the consent exists. People say to themselves that government is necessary. Altogether ignoring that the problems which government claims to alleviate are, most often, the result of a common denominator and, at any other time, even a direct result of government itself.

Power structures claim to bring order. But they are merely a different manifestation of disorder. Taking this into account, we can see that throughout human history, almost consistently across time and land mass, the human race has been in a perpetual state of civil war. At it's root, this is a war of ideas and beliefs but it translates into very real consequences of violence, subordination and a variety of suffering.

Do not try to change the system. Change ideas and the system will change itself.

The idea that a laborer should trade their work for a wage, rather than for equity in his workplace, is fundamentally flawed.

How?? Personally, I genuinely prefer the cash. In fact, my company also pays me stocks as part of my income but I instantly cash them out and either save the money or buy other, better investments. How is it that you know that I (and every other worker) would really rather have equity??

How?? Personally, I genuinely prefer the cash. In fact, my company also pays me stocks as part of my income but I instantly cash them out and either save the money or buy other, better investments. How is it that you know that I (and every other worker) would really rather have equity??

So, essentially you're saying "C'est la vie, I'm not going to engage your argument any further because you're not acknowledging my premises". Oh well. Perhaps someone else will have more of a substantive reply.

The idea that a laborer should trade their work for a wage, rather than for equity in his workplace, is fundamentally flawed. And, in a truly free market, it becomes apparent that it's just plain stupid.

On what grounds?

EDIT: I realize my question is essentially the same as Clayton's, but I still think it's a good one. Why,exactly,is "the idea that a laborer should trade their work for a wage rather than for equity in his workplace" "fundamentally flawed". Moreover, how does it, in a truly free market, become "apparent that it's just plain stupid."?

On what grounds, pray tell, is private enterprise good? If you see economics and economic relations from the somewhat Darwinian perspective of a great many "libertarians" you should realize that Darwinism, i.e. the law of the jungle, certainly doesn't respect any ethically-based rights whatsoever, not even the right of an individual to property that he's invested his labor in. Nope, the principle at the heart of social Darwinism only respects strength and one crude entitlement, the entitlement of the strong to take and appropriate whatever they jolly well can and care to. Mm-hmm, if you intellectually sign onto "libertarian" Darwinism then the form of society that you should favor is one based on out-and-out banditry, on alpha males enjoying license to go about forcibly seizing whatever they covet.

Ah, but perhaps you would oppose such an excessively Darwinian society on the rational grounds that we all desire well-being and legalizing banditry wouldn't be conducive to the greatest well-being of the greatest number of human beings? Well, I would assert that it's also likewise a rational position to oppose capitalism because it allows robber barons, corporate raiders, expropriative employers, crooked Wall Streeters, and other capitalist bandits to have their way victimizing workingclass people to much too great an extent. And I would further assert that what folks in your ideological camp reflexively dismiss as "socialism" would be far more consistent with the aim of orientating and organizing society so as to maximize and ensure the adequate sharing of material well-being. At any rate, although private property is the cornerstone of capitalism it's certainly not a natural right; and it's indeed quite arguable that the idea that the economy should revolve around individuals struggling to earn private wealth for themselves, with some ending up doing well for themselves at the expense of others, is not at all the most rational and "utilitarian" point of view on how our society should do economics. So, I put it to you again, why is private property and a capitalist market the best or only way to go?

What's your definiton of capitalism?

My definition: capitalism is a system in which individuals and business entities are given license to function according to a narrow, myopic understanding of self-interest that degenerates into socially destructive greed. This promptly permits the devolution of a capitalist meritocracy into a plutocracy, which is why we don't have the "pure" free-market system that free-market purists dream of. This outcome is built into capitalism, this is its fatal flaw.

So, essentially you're saying "C'est la vie, I'm not going to engage your argument any further because you're not acknowledging my premises". Oh well. Perhaps someone else will have more of a substantive reply.

There isn't much to respond to. It's a lot of fluff. Clayton challenged one of the only spots worth challenging, and your retort is what? Oh well?

Perhaps someone else will have something of substance to say, but it's not going to be in this thread.

There isn't much to respond to. It's a lot of fluff. Clayton challenged one of the only spots worth challenging, and your retort is what? Oh well?

Perhaps someone else will have something of substance to say, but it's not going to be in this thread.

Our capitalist society doesn't instill in its members an ideological belief in communism's merits. To be a "communist" (to employ the label that some here would like to marginalize me with) in our capitalist universe and noosphere means that one ipso facto has to have done a bit of his/her own thinking, a bit of critical cogitation, and most certainly hasn't merely settled into an acceptance of our society's prevailing, dominant ideology. However, it's quite a different story with "libertarians", they merely subscribe to an ultraist, purist form of pro-capitalist false consciousness and despite their predilection for logic are hardly at all credible when they deny being ideologues.

How?? Personally, I genuinely prefer the cash. In fact, my company also pays me stocks as part of my income but I instantly cash them out and either save the money or buy other, better investments. How is it that you know that I (and every other worker) would really rather have equity??

Thescout:

Very well, if it truly requires an answer: Our capitalist society doesn't instill in its members an ideological belief in communism's merits. To be a "communist" (to employ the label that some here would like to marginalize me with) in our capitalist universe and noosphere means that one ipso facto has to have done a bit of his/her own thinking, a bit of critical cogitation, and most certainly hasn't merely settled into an acceptance of our society's prevailing, dominant ideology. However, it's quite a different story with "libertarians", they merely subscribe to an ultraist, purist form of pro-capitalist false consciousness and despite their predilection for logic are hardly at all credible when they deny being ideologues.

Perhaps your lack of response thus far is due to the fact that my radical rejection of the concept of earning a living, and my aspheterism (the view that private ownership is a phantasm that only seems real because so many of us are culturally conditioned to buy into it; i.e., that the right to private property is a veritable canard, an egoistic convention masquerading as a right) is too radical for right-wing folks to wrap their minds around and mount an intellectual attack against? Well, perhaps time will tell.

Number 9: Back to the Jungle?

Many critics complain that the free market, in casting aside inefficient entrepreneurs or in other decisions, proves itself an "impersonal monster." The free-market economy, they charge, is "the rule of the jungle," where "survival of the fittest" is the law. Libertarians who advocate a free market are therefore called "Social Darwinists" who wish to exterminate the weak for the benefit of the strong.

In the first place, these critics overlook the fact that the operation of the free market is vastly different from governmental action. When a government acts, individual critics are powerless to change the result. They can do so only if they can finally convince the rulers that their decision should be changed; this may take a long time or be totally impossible. On the free market, however, there is no final decision imposed by force; everyone is free to shape his own decisions and thereby significantly change the results of "the market."

In short, whoever feels that the market has been too cruel to certain entrepreneurs or to any other income receivers is perfectly free to set up an aid fund for suitable gifts and grants. Those who criticize existing private charity as being "insufficient" are perfectly free to fill the gap themselves. We must beware of hypostatizing the "market" as a real entity, a maker of inexorable decisions. The market is the resultant of the decisions of all individuals in the society; people can spend their money in any way they please and can make any decisions whatever concerning their persons and their property. They do not have to battle against or convince some entity known as the "market" before they can put their decisions into effect.

"The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time amidst rising wealth."

The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite of the "jungle" society. The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter's property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another, though he may also retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the division of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of the "survival of the fittest" to both the jungle and the market is to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The "fit" in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The "fit" on the market are those most adept in the service of society. The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption. On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that cannot exist in the jungle.

The free market, therefore, transmutes the jungle's destructive competition for meagre subsistence into a peaceful co-operative competition in the service of one's self and others. In the jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market, everyone gains. It is the market—the contractual society—that wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the jungle, that permits the "weak" to live productively, or out of gifts from production, in a regal style compared to the life of the "strong" in the jungle. Furthermore, the market, by raising living standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes.

It is precisely statism that is bringing back the rule of the jungle—bringing back conflict, disharmony, caste struggle, conquest and the war of all against all, and general poverty. In place of the peaceful "struggle" of competition in mutual service, statism substitutes calculational chaos and the death-struggle of Social Darwinist competition for political privilege and for limited subsistence.

If workers were paid for with equity many would sell that equity for cash, and eventually go back to prefering cash instead of equity. (Edit: Clayton already pointed that out anyway)

I think we have to define what a capitalist is. A capitalist is basically somone with a low time preference, meaning that they are willing to wait longer periods of time to recieve goods. The higher a persons time preference the more they want goods in the present. The capitalist pays present goods in the form of cash to workers, while the worker has the burden of having to labor the capitalist has the burden of waiting longer periods of time for return. then we combine the role of entrepreneur with the capitalist, the entrepreneur has to deal with uncerntainty and risk and dececion making.

Sorry I'm tired this is all kind of mumbling but I think it is important to point out what a capitalist is. I think the capitalist and entrepreneur are considered two different roles but the two roles are often combined in the same person

"Inflation has been used to pay for all wars and empires as far back as ancient Rome… Inflationism and corporatism… prompt scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself"
End the Fed P.134Ron Paul

Great video, anyone can become a capitalist through thrift and hard work. All you need is a saving account

Earning nothing in your savings account? Blame the government

"Inflation has been used to pay for all wars and empires as far back as ancient Rome… Inflationism and corporatism… prompt scapegoating: blaming foreigners, illegal immigrants, ethnic minorities, and too often freedom itself"
End the Fed P.134Ron Paul

No, you did not. Go read his post again, and then you can tell me why you know what's best for Clayton. Then you can tell him why he is wrong to prefer cash to equity.

I said, quite explicitly, what I intended to say, but you're hostile to the views that I've so explicitly expressed and are therefore attempting to polemicize by putting my views in your own depreciative words. I substantively pointed out that his egoist ideology was a result of the indoctrination that made him blind to the socioeconomic disenfranchisement of the poor. Have a response, 'gotlucky?' Anything spring to mind?

Why should I bother responding when I'm still waiting on your response? You can dodge the question day and night, but this is the internet, and anyone can scroll up and see that you dodged the question.

However, it's quite a different story with "libertarians", they merely subscribe to an ultraist, purist form of pro-capitalist false consciousness and despite their predilection for logic are hardly at all credible when they deny being ideologues.

Marginalization and ad hominem of a prima facie reasonable[1] point-of-view... always a convincing way to settle an argument.

Clayton -

[1] - "prima facie reasonable" is an extremely broad term I am using to include things such as capitalism, Marxism, democracy - even fascism - but exclude things like self-flaggelation, North Korean propaganda, etc.

Many critics complain that the free market, in casting aside inefficient entrepreneurs or in other decisions, proves itself an "impersonal monster." The free-market economy, they charge, is "the rule of the jungle," where "survival of the fittest" is the law. Libertarians who advocate a free market are therefore called "Social Darwinists" who wish to exterminate the weak for the benefit of the strong.

In the first place, these critics overlook the fact that the operation of the free market is vastly different from governmental action. When a government acts, individual critics are powerless to change the result. They can do so only if they can finally convince the rulers that their decision should be changed; this may take a long time or be totally impossible. On the free market, however, there is no final decision imposed by force; everyone is free to shape his own decisions and thereby significantly change the results of "the market."

In short, whoever feels that the market has been too cruel to certain entrepreneurs or to any other income receivers is perfectly free to set up an aid fund for suitable gifts and grants. Those who criticize existing private charity as being "insufficient" are perfectly free to fill the gap themselves. We must beware of hypostatizing the "market" as a real entity, a maker of inexorable decisions. The market is the resultant of the decisions of all individuals in the society; people can spend their money in any way they please and can make any decisions whatever concerning their persons and their property. They do not have to battle against or convince some entity known as the "market" before they can put their decisions into effect.

"The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time amidst rising wealth."

The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite of the "jungle" society. The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter's property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another, though he may also retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the division of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of the "survival of the fittest" to both the jungle and the market is to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The "fit" in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The "fit" on the market are those most adept in the service of society. The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption. On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that cannot exist in the jungle.

The free market, therefore, transmutes the jungle's destructive competition for meagre subsistence into a peaceful co-operative competition in the service of one's self and others. In the jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market, everyone gains. It is the market—the contractual society—that wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the jungle, that permits the "weak" to live productively, or out of gifts from production, in a regal style compared to the life of the "strong" in the jungle. Furthermore, the market, by raising living standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes.

It is precisely statism that is bringing back the rule of the jungle—bringing back conflict, disharmony, caste struggle, conquest and the war of all against all, and general poverty. In place of the peaceful "struggle" of competition in mutual service, statism substitutes calculational chaos and the death-struggle of Social Darwinist competition for political privilege and for limited subsistence.

This is the sort of naive drivel that we're taught about our economic system as children, and alas some people's thinking never reaches a level of maturity at which it's recognized for what it is, mythology, indoctrination, the Big Lie of capitalism. Good grief, you're not describing reality, you're reciting your indoctrination. Pay attention now, in the empirical real world it works as follows. At the risk of sounding tautological, workers do the work but capitalists disproportionately reap the rewards. Indeed, workers are frequently not remunerated even adequately, let alone a fashion that is directly proportional to their need in the economy. The disadvantaged condition of many workers and the poor and the excessively empowered position of the rich is such that the proletariat and the lumpenproletariat cannot simply and freely choose the role that they will play in the economy and their income. If we really had a system that wasn't excessively dominated by capitalists as ours is, that instead afforded workers equal opportunity and radically greater self-determination, it would be called a worker's land perhaps on its way to communism, not the free market!

Yes! Go George Bush! Bomb those goddamn Iraqis and filthy little Afghanis to smithereens! Go Team America! The defense budget is too small! And who gives a crap about those dirty, lazy poor people... they deserve to be poor for being so damn lazy all the time! Ooh rah!!

Why should I bother responding when I'm still waiting on your response? You can dodge the question day and night, but this is the internet, and anyone can scroll up and see that you dodged the question.

Firstly, people aren't all born with a full and confident sense of their own intrinsic dignity, therefore if your society, through its unequal power structure, tells you that you're of less value, well, this certainly can have its harm. As for people valuing themselves relative to others, well, we exist in the world in a relational-interdependent fashion, how we relate to one another and are valued by one another is always going to be of profound importance to our experience of life.

Poor people not feeling deprived of dignity because their economic system supplies them with enough bread and circuses, as it were, enough palliation of their poverty, having your dignity respected and validated requires more than being tossed plenty of crumbs from the master's table. Indeed, it's quite materialistic to think in terms of crumbs from the master's table compensating us for the abridgment of our right to equality and dignity.

Put the Thesaurus down, and no one will get hurt... Seriously, why not try talking like a human being? I do not begrudge you your Marxist lexicon - suitable for discussion with your Marxist colleagues who are initiated into your terminology - but surely you recognize we are not Marxists here (well, we have a couple grumpy Marxists that hang around and give us hell), so you have to unpack your terminology into lay terms if you intend to actually have a discussion, rather than attempt to obfuscate with loquacious posts and sesquipedlian words (h/t thesaurus.com).

Yes! Go George Bush! Bomb those goddamn Iraqis and filthy little Afghanis to smithereens! Go Team America! The defense budget is too small! And who gives a crap about those dirty, lazy poor people... they deserve to be poor for being so damn lazy all the time! Ooh rah!!

Put the Thesaurus down, and no one will get hurt... Seriously, why not try talking like a human being? I do not begrudge you your Marxist lexicon - suitable for discussion with your Marxist colleagues who are initiated into your terminology - but surely you recognize we are not Marxists here (well, we have a couple grumpy Marxists that hang around and give us hell), so you have to unpack your terminology into lay terms if you intend to actually have a discussion, rather than attempt to obfuscate with loquacious posts and sesquipedlian words (h/t thesaurus.com).

Clayton -

Hardly, what you consider to be "loquacious posts and sesquipedalian words" is simply called a long train of thought by people whose cognitive processes haven't been conditioned for excessive brevity by too much twitter and texting. Yes, apparently too much time spent with one's mind engaged in processing and communicating in the sound bites of internet forums and cell phone messages can cause what's being called popcorn brain, a condition that makes one ill-equipped to deal with input and information that takes more than a second or two to process and that doesn't yield instant gratification (indeed, according to a CNN article "Over time, and with enough Internet usage, the structure of our brains can actually physically change, according to a new study. Researchers in China did MRIs on the brains of 18 college students who spent about 10 hours a day online. Compared with a control group who spent less than two hours a day online, these students had less gray matter, the thinking part of the brain"). Well, those of you who apparently suffer from some degree of popcorn brain do tend to complain about the prolixity of my posts and have difficulty thinking about their theses (maybe this has to do with the diminished gray matter?!), but they're actually not at all incoherent.

Hardly, what you consider to be "loquacious posts and sesquipedalian words" is simply called a long train of thought by people whose cognitive processes haven't been conditioned for excessive brevity by too much twitter and texting. Yes, apparently too much time spent with one's mind engaged in processing and communicating in the sound bites of internet forums and cell phone messages can cause what's being called popcorn brain, a condition that makes one ill-equipped to deal with input and information that takes more than a second or two to process and that doesn't yield instant gratification (indeed, according to a CNN article "Over time, and with enough Internet usage, the structure of our brains can actually physically change, according to a new study. Researchers in China did MRIs on the brains of 18 college students who spent about 10 hours a day online. Compared with a control group who spent less than two hours a day online, these students had less gray matter, the thinking part of the brain"). Well, those of you who apparently suffer from some degree of popcorn brain do tend to complain about the prolixity of my posts and have difficulty thinking about their theses (maybe this has to do with the diminished gray matter?!), but they're actually not at all incoherent.

Don't get me wrong - I understand what most of what you're writing. I didn't accuse you of writing non-cognitive posts, as many trolls who visit these forums do, stringing together chains of words and phrases they do not understand into transparent gibberish. Nevertheless, you must acknowledge the difference between clerical debate with initiates and proselytic discussion with non-initiates. I'm saying, "You're speaking to us like we're initiates... but we're not, why not try talk to us like potential proselytes." Since, as you believe, our "popcorn brains" are so debilitated by all this right-wing indoctrination, it should be fairly trivial for you to do a little translation into our native moron-speak.

Not surprised that you, along with your fellow libertarians and pro-capitalistswould find it difficult to becreatively idiosyncratic in such a fashion (or perhaps one might describe it as inventively individualistic, as the word idiosyncratic might sound slightly derogatory) without messing up, or bothering to realize that this forum oh-so-conveniently has a editing option.

Not surprised that you, along with your fellow libertarians and pro-capitalists would find it difficult to be creatively idiosyncratic in such a fashion (or perhaps one might describe it as inventively individualistic, as the word idiosyncratic might sound slightly derogatory, is of the essence of good writing) without messing up, or bothering to realize that this forum oh-so-conveniently has a editing option.

Vive, is that you? Are you messing with us? Or is this Neodoxy? Dude, I purposely did not edit because you had already quoted me.

Firstly. If this word could mean anything it would mean firstlike, whatever that might mean. The ordinal numbers should have no adverbial form: "firstly," "secondly," and the rest are words without meaning.

Now to deconstruct your post:

Thescout:

people aren't all born with a full and confident sense of their own intrinsic dignity,

Show me one atom or molecule of dignity. Then you may show me how voluntary trade violates this dignity.

tells you that you're of less value, well, this certainly can have its harm.

Sticks and stones may break my bones...

Thescout:

As for people valuing themselves relative to others, well, we exist in the world in a relational-interdependent fashion, how we relate to one another and are valued by one another is always going to be of profound importance to our experience of life.

Yes, individuals do indeed place values on themselves and others.

Thescout:

Poor people not feeling deprived of dignity because their economic system supplies them with enough bread and circuses, as it were, enough palliation of their poverty,

My goodness, you need to read The Elements of Style. Regardless, are you suggesting that all poor people do not feel deprived of their dignity because they are being appeased, or just that some poor people do not feel deprived for the same reason?

Thescout:

having your dignity respected and validated requires more than being tossed plenty of crumbs from the master's table.

In what sense are you using the word master? Are you suggesting that in voluntary exchange, there is an owner and a slave?

Thescout:

Indeed, it's quite materialistic to think in terms of crumbs from the master's table compensating us for the abridgment of our right to equality and dignity.

You might want to stop using metaphors. I don't tend to think of dollars as crumbs, and I can't imagine what sum of money would equal a loaf of bread.

Don't get me wrong - I understand what most of what you're writing. I didn't accuse you of writing non-cognitive posts, as many trolls who visit these forums do, stringing together chains of words and phrases they do not understand into transparent gibberish. Nevertheless, you must acknowledge the difference between clerical debate with initiates and proselytic discussion with non-initiates. I'm saying, "You're speaking to us like we're initiates... but we're not, why not try talk to us like potential proselytes." Since, as you believe, our "popcorn brains" are so debilitated by all this right-wing indoctrination, it should be fairly trivial for you to do a little translation into our native moron-speak.

Clayton -

KK. Here we go:

Increased market liberalization and opportunities increases employment. It is very difficult to be successful as a business owner in this country, because the government has made it so difficult through taxes, regulation, and legal threats. Free market would make it simple and profitable to open a business.

Firstly. If this word could mean anything it would mean firstlike, whatever that might mean. The ordinal numbers should have no adverbial form: "firstly," "secondly," and the rest are words without meaning.

I intended to provide further analysis, but having to deconstruct the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts for too long might put stress on your poor brain.

Show me one atom or molecule of dignity. Then you may show me how voluntary trade violates this dignity.

My goodness, you need to read The Elements of Style. Regardless, are you suggesting that all poor people do not feel deprived of their dignity because they are being appeased, or just that some poor people do not feel deprived for the same reason?

Why, they're marvelously benevolent benefactors to their subsistence-wage-earning and virtually-indentured-by-economic-circumstances employees. And yet I recall reading that recently the misery index was at its highest level since 1983. But I stand corrected by you dear gotlucky, yes, everything is just hunky-dory for America's poor.

In what sense are you using the word master? Are you suggesting that in voluntary exchange, there is an owner and a slave?

Not using the narrow-minded definition Austrian fanboys tend to understand it as. Have you ever considered the fact that through structural adjustment and its high degree of influence and control over the economy, the capitalist elite have created the economic conditions that prevent the subject populations from developing and providing a better range of opportunities for themselves?

"Have you ever considered the fact that through structural adjustment and its high degree of influence and control over the economy, the capitalist elite have created the economic conditions that prevent the subject populations from developing and providing a better range of opportunities for themselves?"

its funny how people can be so right and yet so wrong. marxism is like fighting evil with stupid. like in heart of archness three when noah stabbed rip riley instead of the pirate.

A capitalist, given his position as the high-and-mighty enforcer of the capitalist agenda. This is an absurd statement that makes you out to be thoroughly naive about the nature and power of economic power.

While you can copy and paste, it appears that you cannot read. My challenge stands, show me one atom or molecule of dignity. Otherwise, you may retract your assertion that dignity is an intrinsic quality of anything.

I'm sorry that your self-esteem is founded upon the opinions of others.

Thescout:

Why, they're marvelously benevolent benefactors to their subsistence-wage-earning and virtually-indentured-by-economic-circumstances employees. And yet I recall reading that recently the misery index was at its highest level since 1983. But I stand corrected by you dear gotlucky, yes, everything is just hunky-dory for America's poor.

What have I corrected? All you did was dodge my question. Why do you dodge so much? Wouldn't it just be easier for us all if you responded to what's written instead of going on tangents?

Thescout:

Not using the narrow-minded definition Austrian fanboys tend to understand it as. Have you ever considered the fact that through structural adjustment and its high degree of influence and control over the economy, the capitalist elite have created the economic conditions that prevent the subject populations from developing and providing a better range of opportunities to their populations?

There you go again. It's a simple question. The answer should be simple too. In what manner are you using the word master? Are you suggesting that for each voluntary trade, there is an owner and a slave? Or are you suggesting something else?

Feel free to respond to what's written. You don't have to dodge. Then we can have a conversation instead of us witnessing your mental masturbation. We are not voyeurs here.